/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090210.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 10, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 28 Headlines AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Junk Buyout Suit ALTRIA GROUP: Tenn. Court Dismisses Allegations in "Lights" Suit CHASE BANK: Faces Calif. Litigation Over "Blank Check" Loans COVIDIEN LTD: Tyco Still Faces Securities & ERISA Litigation FRASER TIMBER: Faces Litigation in Maine Over Worker Lay Offs KB HOME: "Bagley" ERISA Violations Suit Still Pending in Calif. MITSUI & CO: Faces Employment Discrimination Suit in New York MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Suit Pending MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Subprime-Related Lawsuits MORGAN STANLEY: "Frozen" Auction Rate Securities Lawsuit Pending MORGAN STANLEY: N.Y. Suits Over Auction Rate Securities Pending MORGAN STANLEY: Still Faces Calif. Securities Lawsuit by PERSM MORGAN STANLEY: "Stratte-McClure" Complaint Pending in Calif. OSHKOSH CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suits in Wis. PANDA RESTAURANT: Faces N.Y. Litigation Alleging FLSA Violations QIMONDA NORTH: Faces Suit in Virgina Alleging WARN Violations RBS WORLDPAY: Law Firms File Lawsuits Over 2008 Data Breach WAL-MART STORES: Fcaes Antitrust Lawsuit in La. Over DVD Rentals New Securities Fraud Cases GOLDMAN SACHS: Bernstein Litowitz Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing LEVEL 3 COMMS: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing LEVEL 3 COMMS: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Stock Lawsuit ********* AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Junk Buyout Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The results of the Oct. 22, 2008 hearing on the motions to dismiss a consolidated lawsuit filed against Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., over the attempted buyout of the company by founder Darwin Deason and Cerberus Capital Management LP remains pending. Initially, several lawsuits were filed. In general, the suits allege claims related to breach of fiduciary duty, and are seeking class action status (Class Action Reporter, May 5, 2008). The plaintiffs in each case purport to be ACS stockholders bringing a class action on behalf of all of the company's public stockholders. Each plaintiff alleges that the proposal presented to the company by Mr. Deason and Cerberus on March 20, 2007, to acquire the company's outstanding stock is unfair to shareholders because the consideration offered in the proposal is alleged to be inadequate and to have resulted from an unfair process. According to a report by the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13, 2008, six cases were filed before the Delaware Chancery Court: 1. "Momentum Partners v. Darwin Deason, Lynn R. Blodgett, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Dennis McCuistion, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2814-VCL," filed on March 20, 2007. 2. "Mark Levy v. Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, John Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2816-VCL," filed on March 21, 2007. 3. "St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v. Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Robert B. Holland, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2821-VCL," filed on March 22, 2007. 4. "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Darwin Deason, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2839-VCL," filed on March 26, 2007. 5. "Edward R. Koller v. Darwin Deason, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2908-VCL," filed on April 20, 2007. 6. "Suzanne Sweeney Living Trust v. Darwin Deason, Lynn R. Blodgett, John H. Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2915-VCL," filed on April 24, 2007. On May 4, 2007, the six Delaware buy-out cases were consolidated into one before the Delaware Chancery Court under the caption "In Re Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2821-VCL." Subsequently, on Oct. 30, 2007, Cerberus withdrew its offer to acquire ACS. On Nov. 2, 2007, a consolidated amended class action suit and derivative complaint was filed by the plaintiffs, adding allegations of breach of fiduciary duties related to the events surrounding the resignation of the outside directors. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief and recovery of unspecified monetary damages sustained by the company. On April 8, 2008, a Verified Consolidated Second Amended Class and Derivative Action Complaint was filed alleging class and derivative claims of breach of fiduciary duty against all individual defendants and class and derivative for aiding and abetting against Cerberus and Citigroup. On May 23, 2008, all defendants, including ACS, filed their respective motions to dismiss. All briefing on the motions to dismiss is complete (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 9, 2008). All briefing on the motions to dismiss is complete and the hearing on the motions occurred on Oct. 22, 2008. No further updates regarding the lawsuits were reported in the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Jan. 29, 2009. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. -- http://www.acs-inc.com/-- provides business process outsourcing and information technology services to commercial and government clients. ALTRIA GROUP: Tenn. Court Dismisses Allegations in "Lights" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee dismissed the class-action allegations in a lawsuit brought against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA alleging violations of state consumer protection laws for using the terms "Lights" and "Lowered Tar and Nicotine" on packages of Marlboro Lights cigarettes, WELT ONLINE of Germany reports. The state court dismissed the class-action allegations as being barred by Tennessee consumer protection law, according to WELT ONLINE. WELT ONLINE reported that the plaintiff in the suit, captioned, "McClure v. Altria Group, Inc.," alleged that Altria Group and Philip Morris USA violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act by using the terms "Lights" and "Lowered Tar and Nicotine" on packages of Marlboro Lights cigarettes. The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of economic damages on behalf of all residents of Tennessee who purchased Marlboro Lights cigarettes at any time since 1971, reports WELT ONLINE. CHASE BANK: Faces Calif. Litigation Over "Blank Check" Loans ------------------------------------------------------------ Chase Bank USA, N.A., the credit card brand of JPMorgan Chase & Co., is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California, alleging it illegally changed the terms of "blank check" loans for its credit card holders, Lauren Smiley of SF Weekly Blogs reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 26, 2009 by Bay Area resident Diane M. Rooney and Riverside County man Michael E. Moore. According to the suit, Chase offered its credit card customers separate loans by sending them "blank checks," loans typically not to exceed their credit card limit, which promise lower interest rates -- from 2.99 percent to 4.99 percent APR -- than credit card debt. Customers were allegedly promised the lower rate would stay in effect "for the life of the loan," reports SF Weekly Blogs. Yet beginning in November 2008, the suit states, the bank notified customers that their check loans would now carry an additional monthly "Service Charge-Finance Charge" and the minimum monthly payment would be raised from 2 to 5 percent, according to the SF Weekly Blogs. Michael Sobol, Esq., the attorney on the case from San Francisco firm Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein told SF Weekly Blogs, "It looks to me they're trying to generate a lot of revenue to come in greater amounts sooner." He adds, "It strikes me as a pretty heavy-handed instance of a company exercising its superior market power and changing the terms on people at variance with terms under which they took on the loan -- and we think that's unfair." The suit is "Moore et al v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 3:09- cv-00348-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Maxine M. Chesney, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael W. Sobol, Esq. (msobol@lchb.com) Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3336 Phone: 415-956-1000 Fax: 415-956-1008 COVIDIEN LTD: Tyco Still Faces Securities & ERISA Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Tyco International continues to face class-action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), according to Covidien Ltd.'s Jan. 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2008. Pursuant to the June 2007 Separation and Distribution Agreement with Tyco International and Tyco Electronics, the company assumed a portion of Tyco International's contingent and other corporate liabilities. Tyco International and certain of its former directors and officers are named defendants in a number of class actions alleging violations of the disclosure provisions of the federal securities laws and also are named as defendants in several ERISA class actions. Tyco International is generally obligated to indemnify its directors and officers and its former directors and officers who are named as defendants in some or all of these matters to the extent required by Bermuda law. In addition, Tyco International's insurance carriers may decline coverage, or Tyco International's coverage may be insufficient to cover its expenses and liability, in some or all of these matters. The company's share of any losses resulting from an adverse resolution of those matters is not estimable and may have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Covidien Ltd. -- http://www.covidien.com/-- is engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of healthcare products for use in clinical and home settings. The company operates its business through four segments: Medical Devices, which includes the development, manufacture and sale of endomechanical instruments, soft tissue repair products, energy devices, oximetry and monitoring products, airway and ventilation products, vascular devices, SharpSafety products, clinical care products and other medical device products; Imaging Solutions, which includes the development, manufacture and marketing of radiopharmaceuticals and contrast products; Pharmaceutical Products, which includes the development, manufacture and distribution of dosage pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical ingredients, and Medical Supplies, which includes the development, manufacture and sale of nursing care products, medical surgical products and original equipment manufacturer products (OEM). FRASER TIMBER: Faces Litigation in Maine Over Worker Lay Offs ------------------------------------------------------------- Fraser Timber, Inc. and Fraser Papers, Inc. are facing a purported class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine alleging that the company violated federal law when it failed last month to give workers at its lumber mills 60 days' notice that they would be laid off, Judy Harrison of Bangor Daily News reports. The suit was filed by Alan Nason, 50, who worked at Fraser's lumber mill in Masardis until he was terminated Jan. 2, 2009, according to the complaint filed on Jan. 28, 2009. Mr. Nason alleges that Fraser did not give employees 60 days' written notice as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, Bangor Daily News reported. The lawsuit is seeking class action status to cover all the employees that Mr. Nason claims were laid off. He is seeking unpaid wages and benefits for the 60 days that Mr. Nason claims he would have earned during the 60-day notice period, according to Bangor Daily News. The suit is "Nason v. Fraser Timber Limited et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-00034-JAW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Brett D. Baber, Esq. (bbaber@lanhamblackwell.com) Lanham Blackwell, P.A. 470 Evergreen Woods Bangor, ME 04401 Phone: 207-942-2898 Fax: 207-945-6118 KB HOME: "Bagley" ERISA Violations Suit Still Pending in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit "Bagley et al., v. KB Home, et al.," remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On March 16, 2007, plaintiffs Reba Bagley and Scott Silver filed an action against against the company, its directors, and certain of its current and former officers under Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132. On April 3, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Tolan Beck and Rod Hughes as additional plaintiffs and dismissing certain individuals as defendants. All four plaintiffs claim to be former employees of KB Home who participated in the KB Home 401(k) Savings Plan. They allege on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated that all defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiffs and purported class members under ERISA by failing to disclose information to and providing misleading information to participants in the Plan about alleged prior stock option backdating practices of the Company and by failing to remove the Company's stock as an investment option under the Plan. The plaintiffs allege that this breach of fiduciary duties caused them to earn less on their Plan accounts than they would have earned but for defendants' alleged breach. They seek unspecified money damages and injunctive and other equitable relief. On May 16, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the suit on the basis that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to state a claim against the company. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the dismissal motion on June 20, 2008. The company filed its reply in support of the motion in July and a hearing on the matter is scheduled for Aug. 4, 2008. The hearing on the motion was held on Sept. 8, 2008. On Oct. 6, 2008, the court issued its order. The court denied the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the duty to monitor and granted the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure. The court also denied a separate motion to dismiss filed by the individual defendants based on the standing of plaintiffs to sue. The company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on Nov. 5, 2008. On Nov. 24, 2008, the court approved a stipulation to stay all discovery and other proceedings through Feb. 6, 2009, in order to allow the parties time to attempt to settle the plaintiffs' claims through mediation, according to the company's Jan. 22, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008. The suit is "Bagley et al., v. KB Home, et al., Case No. 2:07- cv-01754-GPS-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge George P. Schiavelli, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Stephen J Fearon, Jr., Esq. (stephen@sfclasslaw.com) Squitieri & Fearon LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-421-6492 - and - Stephen M. Fishback, Esq. (sfishback@kfjlegal.com) Keller Fishback and Jackson LLP 18425 Burbank Boulevard Suite 610 Tarzana, CA 91356-6918 Phone: 818-342-7442 Fax: 818-342-7616 Representing the defendants are: Marc T.G. Dworsky, Esq. (marc.dworsky@mto.com) Munger Tolles & Olson 355 S. Grand Ave., 35th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: 213-683-9100 - and - Michael M. Farhang, Esq. (mfarhang@gibsondunn.com) Gibson Dunn and Crutcher 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213-229-7005 MITSUI & CO: Faces Employment Discrimination Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., and Mitsui & Co., Limited of Tokyo are facing a puported class-action suit in New York alleging employment discrimination, Grant McCool of Reuters reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Suothern District of New York on Feb. 5, 2009 by Andrew Van Etten, a former senior director at Mitsui USA. According to the suit Mr. Van Etten who was "unlawfully terminated" by the company in August 2006. The suit claims that the Japanese trading house's USA unit discriminated against non-Japanese and non-Asian employees and dismissed Mr. Van Etten, 46, because of his age. It states thtat Mitsui discriminated against Mr. Van Etten "by denying him the same terms and conditions of employment available to younger employees" in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967, according to the Reuters report. The lawsuit said Mr. Van Etten, who was employed with the firm from 1988 in New York until his dismissal, filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in June 2007 and the EEOC granted him the right to sue in November last year. According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters, "The employment policies and practices of Mitsui USA, under direction of Mitsui Japan, have the effect and have been undertaken with the purpose of denying promotional and management opportunities, equal compensation and equal terms and conditions of employment to qualified non-Japanese/non-Asians." Mr. Van Etten's lawyer Kenneth Thompson told Reuters by telephone that "because he spoke out they fired him on trumped up charges. They said that five years earlier there were discrepancies in his expense reports even though the company acknowledged he performed outstanding work for them." The suit is "Andrew Van Etten v Mitsui & Company (USA) Inc and Mitsuit & Company, Limited of Tokyo, Case No. 09-1071," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Suothern District of New York, Judge Richard J. Sullivan, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Kenneth P. Thompson, Esq. (kthompson@twglaw.com) Thompson Wigdor & Gilly LLP 85 Fifth Avenue 5th Floor New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 257-6800 Fax: (212) 257-6845 MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation remains pending, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008. Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims on behalf of participants in Morgan Stanley's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against Morgan Stanley and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The complaints relate in large part to subprime-related losses, and allege, among other things, that Morgan Stanley's stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed. On Feb. 11, 2008, all of the pending actions asserting claims under ERISA related to Morgan Stanley's 401(k) and employee stock ownership plan were consolidated in a single proceeding in the SDNY, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation. On July 25, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, which defendants have moved to dismiss. The consolidated complaint in this action relates in large part to Morgan Stanley's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also includes allegations regarding Morgan Stanley's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Morgan Stanley -- http://www.morganstanley.com/-- is a global financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides its products and services to a group of clients and customers, including corporations, governments, financial institutions and individuals. Morgan Stanley's business segments include Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management. The company conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S. and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other world financial centers. MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Subprime-Related Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley remains a named defendant in several putative class-action suits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the U.S. Securities Act related to the company's role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass-through certificates for certain entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses, according to its Jan. 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008. These putative class-action suits include those related to: -- New Century Financial Corp., pending with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; -- Countrywide Financial Corp. and its affiliates, one consolidated lawsuit is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and two other lawsuits are pending with the Superior Court of the State of California in Los Angeles; -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; -- Wachovia Corp., pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; -- Washington Mutual, Inc., pending with the U.S. States District Court for the Western District of Washington; and -- Fifth Third Bancorp, pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2008). On Dec. 3, 2008, the court in the case related to New Century, which is styled In Re New Century, denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated class action complaint. On Dec. 8, 2008, the underwriter defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in the case related to Washington Mutual, which is styled, "In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation." Morgan Stanley -- http://www.morganstanley.com/-- is a global financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides its products and services to a group of clients and customers, including corporations, governments, financial institutions and individuals. Morgan Stanley's business segments include Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management. The company conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S. and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other world financial centers. MORGAN STANLEY: "Frozen" Auction Rate Securities Lawsuit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley continues to face a purported class action lawsuit in New York over auction rate securities that were allegedly "frozen" by the company, according to its Jan. 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008. On May 28, 2008, a putative class action suit, entitled, "Bartholomew v. Morgan Stanley et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of individuals who allegedly had their auction rate securities "frozen" by the company and who have been damaged thereby. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company made misrepresentations and omissions with respect to auction rate securities and breached a fiduciary duty to the putative class by failing to participate in auctions and asserts claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and state law. The complaint seeks damages, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and a declaration that the Company's auction rate securities transactions with the putative class members are void (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2008). The suit is "Bartholomew v. Morgan Stanley et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-04910-AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Joel Paul Laitman, Esq. (jplaitman@aol.com) Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406 New York, NY 10038 Phone: 212-964-0046 Fax: 212-267-8137 - and - Elizabeth Tripodi, Esq. (etripodi@finkelsteinthompson.com) Finkelstein Thompson LLP 1050 30th Street NW Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-337-8000 Fax: 202-337-8090 Representing the defendants are: Gregory Arthur Markel, Esq. (greg.markel@cwt.com) Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP One World Financial Center New York, NY 10281 Phone: 212-504-6112 Fax: 212-504-6666 MORGAN STANLEY: N.Y. Suits Over Auction Rate Securities Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley, along with certain of its subsidiaries, continues to face a couple of purported class action lawsuits in New York over auction rate securities that were acquired from the company, according to its Jan. 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008. On March 25, 2008, a putative class action complaint, entitled, "Miller v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated," was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York purportedly on behalf of persons who acquired auction rate securities from the Company from March 25, 2003, through Feb. 13, 2008, and who were allegedly damaged thereby. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company failed to disclose material facts with respect to auction rate securities and thereby violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and rescission. On March 31, 2008, a similar action, entitled, "Jamail v. Morgan Stanley, et al.," was filed in the same court seeking damages, attorneys' fees and equitable and injunctive relief (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2008). Morgan Stanley -- http://www.morganstanley.com/-- is a global financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides its products and services to a group of clients and customers, including corporations, governments, financial institutions and individuals. Morgan Stanley's business segments include Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management. The company conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S. and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other world financial centers. MORGAN STANLEY: Still Faces Calif. Securities Lawsuit by PERSM -------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley continues to defend the purported class action filed by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi against Morgan Stanley in the Central District of California. On Dec. 2, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action against Morgan Stanley, certain present and former officers and other defendants asserting claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act related to alleged false and misleading statements in the registration statements and other offering documents associated with fourteen trusts that issued mortgage pass through certificates backed by residential mortgage loans in 2006. The lawsuit, which is styled, "Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. Morgan Stanley, et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for Orange County. On Dec. 31, 2008, the defendants removed the case to federal court in the Central District of California. No further details regarding the case were disclosed in the company's Jan. 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008. Morgan Stanley -- http://www.morganstanley.com/-- is a global financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides its products and services to a group of clients and customers, including corporations, governments, financial institutions and individuals. Morgan Stanley's business segments include Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management. The company conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S. and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other world financial centers. MORGAN STANLEY: "Stratte-McClure" Complaint Pending in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint styled, "Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al.," is pending in the Central District of California, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008. On Feb. 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class-action suit, which was amended on Nov. 24, 2008, naming Morgan Stanley and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and alleging claims for, among other things, violations of the securities laws related in large part to Morgan Stanley's subprime related losses. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint purports to assert claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of Morgan Stanley common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to Dec. 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to Morgan Stanley's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding Morgan Stanley's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Morgan Stanley -- http://www.morganstanley.com/-- is a global financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and affiliates, provides its products and services to a group of clients and customers, including corporations, governments, financial institutions and individuals. Morgan Stanley's business segments include Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management. The company conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S. and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other world financial centers. OSHKOSH CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suits in Wis. -------------------------------------------------------------- Oshkosh Corp. continues to face several purported securities fraud class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Jan. 29, 2009. On Sept. 19, 2008, a purported shareholder of Oshkosh Corp. filed a complaint, seeking certification of a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin docketed as "Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Oshkosh Corporation and Robert G. Bohn." The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially inadequate disclosures and material omissions leading to the company's issuance of revised earnings guidance and announcement of an impairment charge on June 26, 2008. Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially similar allegations were filed. The suit is "Iron Workers Local No 25 Pension Fund v. Oshkosh Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00797-WEC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge William E. Callahan, Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Guri Ademi, Esq. (gademi@ademilaw.com) Ademi & O'Reilly LLP 3620 E Layton Ave Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: 414-482-8000 Fax: 414-482-8001 - and - David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 S. Service Rd � Ste. 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 PANDA RESTAURANT: Faces N.Y. Litigation Alleging FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. and Panda Express, Inc. are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in New York alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Allan Drury of The Journal News reported that the plaintiff, Khan Kudo, of Orange County, claims that he was a general manager at Panda's Palisades Center restaurant and that he worked at least 50 hours a week without getting overtime. The suit is "Kudo v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:2009-cv-00712," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Cathy Seibel, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Mary E. Brady Marzolla, Esq. Ferrick Lynch MacCartney, PLLC 96 South Broadway South Nyack, NY 10960 Phone: (845) 353-2000 Fax: (845) 353-2789 QIMONDA NORTH: Faces Suit in Virgina Alleging WARN Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Qimonda North America Corp. and Qimonda Richmond LLC are facing a purported class-action suit in Virginia alleging violations of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, Peter Bacque of the Richmond Times Dispatch. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virgina on Feb. 5, 2009 by Carl Jackson, a laid-off Qimonda worker who is suing the Henrico County computer chipmaker for two months' pay and benefits. Jack A. Raisner, Esq., Mr. Jackson's attorney told the Richmond Times Dispatch, "They didn't give advance notice to employees before letting them go." He adds, "We're alleging that's a violation under the WARN Act." Mr. Jackson filed suit on behalf of himself and other Qimonda workers. He alleged that he and others were not given the 60- day written notice of their terminations, or 60 days' pay, that the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification -- WARN -- Act requires, repots the Richmond Times Dispatch. Court papers estimated the damages sought at $20 million but, Mr. Raisner, a New York employment-rights lawyer told the Richmond Times Dispatch, "it could be much less, it could be much more," depending on the number of employees affected and their actual wages and benefits. Qimonda announced 1,500 layoffs -- including Mr. Jackson's, the court papers said -- at its memory-chip plant in Sandston this week, according to the Richmond Times Dispatch. The suit asks for the unpaid wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday and vacation pay, and pension contributions and benefits that the affected Qimonda employees would have received for 60 days, as well as interest and legal fees, the Richmond Times Dispatch reported. The suit is "Jackson v. Qimonda North American Corp. et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00060-RLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virgina, Jugde Richard L. Williams, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Lisa Kim Newstein Lawrence, Esq. Lawrence & Associates 701 E Franklin St PO Box 495 Richmond, VA 23218-0495 Phone: (804) 643-9343 RBS WORLDPAY: Law Firms File Lawsuits Over 2008 Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Three law firms filed a class-action lawsuit against payment processor RBS Worldpay, following reports that an intrusion into the company's network resulted in the brazen theft of $9 million from ATMs in 49 cities worldwide, SecurityFocus reports. According to a recent Fox News report, on Nov. 8, 2008, low- level thieves -- known as "cashers" -- descended on more than 130 ATMs in Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Montreal, Moscow, Hong Kong and 43 other cities and depleted 100 accounts of about $9 million. At the same time, online criminals lifted the restrictions on withdrawals that would have limited the losses to $500 per card, the report stated. RBS Worldpay, the U.S. payment processing arm of the Royal Bank of Scotland, learned two days later that the financial information used in the theft was stolen from its servers. Not until Dece. 23, 2008, two days before Christmas, did the company notify its customers that the personal and financial details of 1.5 million cardholders and the social security numbers of 1.1 million workers had been compromised, according to the SecurityFocus report. "RBS was intimately familiar with industry-wide duties and standards regarding data security," a copy of the lawsuit obtained by SecurityFocus states. "Ironically, as part of its business, RBS offers data breach protection services to its merchant clients." SecurityFocus reported that the lawsuit against RBS Worldpay involves law firms in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Washington D.C. It combines earlier individual suits filed by the firms on behalf of their clients. WAL-MART STORES: Fcaes Antitrust Lawsuit in La. Over DVD Rentals ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Netflix, Inc. are facing a purported antitrust class-action suit in Louisiana alleging anti-trust collusive behavior between the two at the time of Wal-Mart's exit from the online video market in 2005, Jamie Anderson of The Money Times reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under the caption, "Hotard v. Netflix, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-01938-HGB-KWR." The suit charged the two companies of improper negotiations, thereby illegally benefiting themselves. It contends that the companies connived to create a cartel for online video rentals. The plaintiff is seeking damages, injunctive relief and court fees, according to The Money Times report. The Money Times reporetd that according to the complaint, "This antitrust class action arises out of a conspiracy among defendants Netflix, Wal-Mart stores, and Walmart.com to divide the markets for the sales and online rentals of DVDs in the United States in order to avoid competition, monopolize, and illegally restrain trade in at least the online DVD rental market." The suit is "Hotard v. Netflix, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:09-cv- 01938-HGB-KWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Helen G. Berrigan, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq. (dbecnel@becnellaw.com) Becnel Law Firm, LLC (Reserve) 106 W. Seventh St. P. O. Drawer H Reserve, LA 70084 Phone: 985-536-1186 New Securities Fraud Cases GOLDMAN SACHS: Bernstein Litowitz Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fri., Feb. 6, 2009 -- NEW YORK, NY -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") today announced that it filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of its client Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System and similarly situated purchasers of GS Mortgage Securities Corp. ("GS Mortgage") Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates or Asset-Backed Certificates (collectively, the "Certificates") pursuant and/or traceable to the false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus Supplements issued during 2006 (collectively, the "Offering Documents"). The class includes purchasers of the following Certificates: GSAMP Trust 2006-S2, Series 2006-S2; GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-3, Series 2006-3; and GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-2, Series 2006-2. The complaint alleges that on August 17, 2005, defendants caused a Registration Statement to be filed with the SEC in connection with and for the purpose of issuing billions of dollars of Certificates. The Certificates were issued pursuant to the Prospectus Supplements, each of which was incorporated into the Registration Statement. The Certificates were supported by pools of mortgage loans. According to the complaint, the Offering Documents included false statements and/or omissions about: -- the underwriting standards used by the loan originators; -- the standards and guidelines used by GS Mortgage when evaluating and acquiring the loans; -- the appraisal standards used to value the properties collateralizing the loans, and the corresponding loan- to-value ratios of the loans; -- the credit enhancement supporting the loan securitization process; and -- the pre-established ratings assigned to each tranche of Certificates issued pursuant to the offering documents. Ultimately, the truth about the performance of the mortgage loans that secured the Certificates began to be revealed to the public, increasing the risk of the Certificates receiving less cash flow in the future and the likelihood that investors would not receive it on a timely basis. The credit rating agencies also began to put negative watch labels on the Certificates, ultimately downgrading many. As a result, the Certificates are no longer marketable at prices near the price paid for them, and the holders of the Certificates are exposed to much more risk with respect to both the timing and absolute cash flow to be received than the Offering Documents represented. The complaint alleges that GS Mortgage, certain of its officers and directors and the issuers and underwriters of the Certificates violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates or Asset-backed Certificates listed above pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (the "Class"). For more information, contact: David R. Stickney, Esq. (davids@blbglaw.com) Timothy A. DeLange, Esq. (timothyd@blbglaw.com) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Phone: (858) 793-0070 Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com LEVEL 3 COMMS: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Feb. 6, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LVLT) common stock during the period between February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007 (the "Class Period") for violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that the representations contained in Level 3's press releases, SEC filings, conference calls, and presentations during the Class Period were materially false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose that: -- the Company was experiencing problems integrating its numerous acquisitions; -- the Company's integration problems caused Level 3 to experience severe provisioning problems which were negatively impacting revenue growth; and -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Level 3's business, operations and earnings prospects. On October 23, 2007, Level 3 issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third quarter of 2007, the period ending September 30, 2007. For the quarter, the Company reported consolidated revenue of $1.061 billion. Level 3 further reported that its core communications services revenue was negatively impacted by provisioning issues. In response to the announcements, the price of Level 3 stock declined from $4.32 per share to $3.18 per share on October 24, 2007, on extremely heavy trading volume. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com LEVEL 3 COMMS: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- BENSALEM, Pa., Feb. 6, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LVLT), has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a Class consisting of all purchasers of the securities of Level 3 between February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Level 3 and certain of its executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations and prospects caused Level 3's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Level 3 provides network and Internet services in North America and Europe, including transport services, high speed Internet protocol services, dedicated Internet access, virtual private network services, colocation services and dark fiber services. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements were false or materially misleading or failed to disclose that, among other things: -- Level 3's efforts to integrate numerous companies it had acquired were not going well; -- the Company was experiencing an increase in service activation times, negatively impacting its service installation intervals and rate of revenue growth; -- challenges in the Company's service management processes were resulting in longer response times to resolve customers' network service issues; -- steps taken by the Company to remedy the problems were not working, and actually were making them worse; and -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company did not have adequate provisioning capability to convert its signed orders into revenue generating service. On October 23, 2007, Level 3 shocked the market when it revealed that the Company was having extensive difficulties integrating the systems and customer-service processes of the numerous companies it had acquired. In addition, Level 3 revised downward the Company's previously issued guidance for fourth quarter 2007 and full year 2008. On this news, shares of Level 3 fell $1.04 per share, or approximately 24%, to close on October 23, 2007 at $3.28 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215)638-4847 or (888)638-4847 Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Stock Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia") today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Rigel") (NASDAQ:RIGL) securities during the period between December 13, 2007 and October 27, 2008 (the "Class Period"), including all persons who acquired the common stock of Rigel pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's February 2008 secondary offering (the "Offering"). The complaint charges Rigel, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of the Offering with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Rigel is a clinical-stage drug development company. The complaint alleges that Rigel was developing a new drug, R788, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. On December 13, 2007, Rigel issued a press release, which was attached as an exhibit to a Form 8-K filed with the SEC, and held a conference call touting the positive summary results of a then-recently- completed clinical trial of R788 in 189 patients in the U.S. and Mexico (the "Study"). In response to the announcement of the summary results of the Study, Rigel's common stock price more than tripled in one day, from $8 per share to $25.95. On January 24, 2008, Rigel filed the Registration Statement for its offering of common stock, which incorporated by reference the December 13, 2007 Form 8-K. On February 6, 2008, Rigel consummated the Offering, selling five million shares of common stock at a price of $27 per share for proceeds of $135 million. Then, on October 27, 2008, Rigel presented the full results of the Study at a meeting of the American College of Rheumatology and on an investor conference call. Those results contained adverse information omitted from the Company's December 13, 2007 press release and Form 8-K, as well as from the Registration Statement and subsequent presentations. When this adverse information about the Study's results was finally disclosed, Rigel's stock price plunged 38% in a single day, from $14.41 to $8.84. According to the complaint, the true facts which defendants failed to disclose were: -- patients in Mexico had higher response rates in both the placebo and treated arms than the U.S. Patients, which may have contributed disproportionately to the overall reported benefit observed at the higher doses; -- R788 caused an increase in average blood pressure which could signal an increase in cardiovascular risk, the mechanism that caused the increase was not well understood and the increase in blood pressure could be a stumbling block for some pharmaceutical companies that were considering licensing the drug; and -- patients in the Study taking R788 experienced increased liver enzymes compared to patients taking the placebo. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Rigel securities during the Class Period and on behalf of all persons who acquired the common stock of Rigel pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Offering (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. For more details, contact: Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/rigel/ ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2009. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *